A professor who predicted Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory and a subsequent US conflict with Iran is now standing by his third and most controversial prediction: that the United States will ultimately lose that conflict.
Professor Jiang, who runs the YouTube channel Predictive History and applies game theory to geopolitical analysis, originally made the predictions in 2024. Speaking about the current situation, he laid out a detailed argument explaining why he believes Iran holds several structural advantages over the United States in a prolonged confrontation.
“Iran has many more advantages over the United States,” Professor Jiang said. “Right now it’s a war of attrition between the United States and Iran. The Iranians have been preparing 20 years for this conflict in their eschatology, in their religion. This is a war against the great Satan.”
According to the professor, religion plays a major role in how the conflict is being perceived within Iran. He argued that the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader in an airstrike is not being interpreted domestically as a defeat but as martyrdom.
“For the Iranians, this is not a biblical war. This is not an economic war. This is not a war of resistance. This is a j*had,” he said, noting that within Shia Islam, martyrdom often serves as a powerful mobilizing force that can strengthen national unity rather than weaken it.
Geography, he argues, also gives Iran a significant advantage. The Strait of Hormuz, which is only about 33 kilometers wide, carries roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply to Asia. Countries like Japan rely on it for about 75% of their energy imports, China for roughly 40%, and India for about 60%.
With Iran closing the strait, Professor Jiang warned that the global economy could face serious disruptions. At the same time, Iran’s mountainous terrain allows it to conceal drone bases and missile systems, making them far harder to target.
In contrast, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations sit largely on flat desert terrain, leaving critical infrastructure exposed. Oil facilities, water systems, and especially desalination plants are highly vulnerable to drone and missile strikes.
“What the Iranians are doing is they’re waging war against the entire global economy,” he explained. “They are striking GCC countries, American bases, and going after the critical energy infrastructure.”
He pointed specifically to desalination plants as a potentially devastating target. Roughly 60% of the GCC’s fresh water supply comes from desalination. If a major facility serving Riyadh were destroyed, the city’s roughly 10 million residents could face severe water shortages within weeks.
Another major factor, according to the professor, is the economic asymmetry in the weapons being used. Iranian Shahed drones can cost between $35,000 and $50,000 each, while US interceptor missiles used to destroy them can cost anywhere from several million dollars per launch.
“You’re spending two to three million dollars on each fifty-thousand-dollar drone,” he said. “The United States military is not designed to fight a 21st century war.”
He argues that American military doctrine was largely built during the Cold War, when the goal was projecting power and deterring rival superpowers rather than fighting prolonged asymmetric conflicts involving cheap drones and decentralized attacks.
“The entire American military strategy revolves around very sophisticated technology that costs a lot of money to build,” he said. “That’s why we’re seeing this asymmetry in this war.”
Professor Jiang also believes Iran is intentionally avoiding direct confrontation with US forces. Instead, it is targeting the economic system supporting American power.
Through proxy groups such as the Houthis, Hezb*llah, Ham*s, and various Shia militias, Iran has spent decades studying American capabilities and vulnerabilities. These groups allow Tehran to apply pressure across multiple regions while keeping the conflict diffuse.
The Gulf states, he argues, are a critical pressure point. Their economies are deeply tied to global energy markets and heavily invested in US financial systems. Sovereign wealth funds from the region hold significant stakes in major American technology companies, including Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple.
“The stock market is the real growth engine of the US economy,” he said. “If GCC economies collapse, their investments collapse, and that hits the US market directly.”
Professor Jiang also addressed the question of why the United States pursued military action despite opposition from both the public and some military officials.
He outlined three possible explanations. The first was hubris: comparing the situation to historical leaders who overestimated their military strength after early successes. The second involved personal political or financial incentives, pointing to business ties between individuals in Trump’s orbit and Gulf or Israeli interests. The third possibility, he suggested, was the expansion of emergency powers that prolonged wartime conditions can provide to governments.
“78% of the American people were against the initial strikes against Iran in the first place,” he noted, suggesting that domestic opposition could become a significant factor if the conflict escalates further.
The professor also warned that history shows regime change has rarely been achieved through air power alone. If pressure from Israel and Gulf nations increases, he believes the United States could eventually face demands to deploy ground troops despite limited public support.
Beyond the immediate conflict, Professor Jiang sees the war as part of a much larger global transition.
In his view, the confrontation signals the potential decline of the current US-led unipolar world order and the emergence of a multipolar system where power is distributed among several major global players.
If that shift accelerates, he argues, the consequences could reshape the global economy, weaken the petrodollar system, and fundamentally alter international power dynamics for decades to come.
